Move a pipeline to a folder

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: the pipeline's definition and versions are left untouched, so the agent knows this is a metadata-only relocation rather than a rebuild. It doesn't cover auth/account scoping behavior or failure modes, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the primary behavior stated first and the git-backed caveat as a follow-on. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema fully documents all three parameters. Combined with the description's scope and side-effect disclosure, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, including detailed folder and account-ID descriptions, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates that the target may be identified by alias or ID, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move an Orchestra-backed pipeline to a folder') and explicitly scopes the target to alias or pipeline ID. It even draws the boundary against git-backed pipelines, so an agent can tell which kind of pipeline this applies to without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: use this for Orchestra-backed pipelines; for git-backed pipelines 'move the file instead' because the folder derives from the YAML location. That is a concrete alternative behavior, not mere implication.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.